ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Thursday, turned down Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s petition challenging his indictment in the cipher case.
A single bench of Chief Justice Aamer Farooq disposed of Imran Khan’s petition while issuing directions that he be provided a “fair trial”.
During the hearing, Imran’s counsel Salman Safdar stated that it took him 10 days to complete his arguments on another petition filed by Imran seeking bail in the said case.
Justice Aamer remarked that he was also taking time in announcing the verdict because such a matter had emerged for the first time and arguments by both sides were presented properly.
Then, Safdar stated that the copies of the cipher case challan had been distributed in the court. “They clearly show that he [Imran] was indicted within a few days,” he said. He contended, “The entire case revolves around this document but the cipher is neither part of the challan nor the case file.”
The lawyer requested, please, grant us some relief. He further highlighted that three things were ignored in the case. “The arrest was secret, the remand was secret, and charges were framed on the sixth day,” Safdar added.
In his petition, the PTI chairman urged the IHC to declare the exercise of framing charges against him as “illegal and unlawful”.
He moved the court through his lawyer Salman Safdar advocate and cited the state through the Attorney General’s Office and secretary Ministry of Interior as respondents.
The counsel stated that the petitioner was quite aggrieved with the mode and manner of framing of charges as well as the proceedings and the trial under the Official Secrets Act. He added that the trial is clearly progressing, violating and compromising settled principles of “criminal law” resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
He contended that the judge in the case, in “sheer haste, compromising fair trial and procedure, proceeded to frame charges against the accused despite serious objections and pendency of applications filed before the court …”.
The counsel maintained that there was a “visible haste” apparent in the actions of the judge. He further said that there seems to be a clear rush and haste on the part of learned trial judge to hurriedly frame charges and conclude trial. This contention holds appeal, especially in light of the fact that challan has only recently been submitted in court, and there is no direction for its early conclusion or for conducting day-to-day hearing by any superior court.
He continued that the special court had framed charges under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, which was in “blatant and brazen violation of the law”. He also said that Imran’s “secret arrest” followed by “secret remand” and the haste in indicting him were “clearly indicative of erroneous approach and understanding of practice and procedure whilst adjudicating on the cipher trial.”
Salman added that the judge had committed a “gross illegality” by framing charges in the absence of “main documentary evidence”.
He said that the exercise of framing charges would be “pointless and futile when the nucleus of the prosecution case, cipher telegram, is not part of the challan”.
He argued that the charges could be framed after seven days of distribution of challan copies and the trial court did not fulfill the legal requirement in this regard.
Therefore, he prayed to the IHC to declare the “hasty exercise” of framing of charges to be “illegal, unlawful and against the settled principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
He further requested the court to declare the exercise in violation of Article 4 (due process) and 10-A (right to fair trial) of the Constitution.
He continued that it is further prayed that the incurable irregularity be cured with an appropriate direction and evidence may not be recorded on [a] defective charge.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.